Irwindale City Council
March 25, 2026

STATISTICAL SECTION
120

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA

DESCRIPTION OF STATISTICAL SECTION CONTENTS
June 30, 2025
This part of the Cityt’s annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements and the note disclosures say about the government’s overall financial health.

Contents: Pages:

Financial Trends: these schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial performance and well being have changed over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 - Revenue Capacity: these schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local revenue source, the property tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 - Debt Capacity: these schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 - Demographic and Economic Information: these schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 - Operating Information: these schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 - 121

Financial Trends
122

Net Position by Component - Last Ten Fiscal Years
123

Changes in Net Position - Last Ten Fiscal Years
124

Fund Balances Governmental Funds - Last Ten Fiscal Years 125

Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds - Last Ten Fiscal Years 126

Revenue Capacity Information
127

Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source - Last Ten Fiscal Years 128

Mining Tax Revenues - Last Ten Fiscal Years
129

Mining Tax Rates - Last Ten Fiscal Years
130

Principal Mining Taxpayers - Current Year and Nine Years Ago 131

Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property - Last Ten Fiscal Years 132

Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates - Last Ten Fiscal Years 133

Principal Property Taxpayers - Current Year and Nine Years Ago 134

Property Tax Levies and Collections - Last Ten Fiscal Years 135

Taxable Sales by Category - Last Ten Fiscal Years
136

Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type - Last Ten Fiscal Years 137

Debt Capacity Information
138

Top 25 Sales Tax Producers - Current Year and Nine Years Ago 139

Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Coverage Successor Agency Tax Allocation Bonds - Last Ten Fiscal Years 140

Direct and Overlapping Debt - As of June 30, 2025
141

Legal Debt Margin Information - Last Ten Fiscal Years
142

Demographic and Economic Information
143

Demographic and Economic Statistics - Last Ten Fiscal Years 144

Principal Employers - Last Ten Fiscal Years
145

Operating Information
146

Full-time and Part-time City Employees by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years 147

Operating Indicators by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years 148

Capital Asset Statistics by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years 149

LSLCPAS.COM
January 28, 2026
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Irwindale, California (hereafter, the City) for the year ended June 30, 2025. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 9, 2025. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Matters
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City changed accounting policies related to compensated absences by adopting Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards (GASB Statement) No. 101, Compensated Absences, in fiscal year 2025. Accordingly, the cumulative effect of the accounting change as of the beginning of the year is reported in the Statement of Activities. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were:

Management’s estimates of the net pension liability and net other post-employment benefits liability are based on actuarial valuations. We evaluated the methods, assumptions, and data used to develop the net pension liability and net other post-employment benefits liability in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors’ report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated January 28, 2026.

Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison schedules for the General Fund and major special revenue funds, and the required pension and other postemployment benefits schedules, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
We were engaged to report on the combining and individual fund statements and schedules which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.

We were not engaged to report on the introductory and statistical sections of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.

Future GASB Pronouncements
The following Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements will be effective for the following fiscal years’ audits and should be reviewed for proper implementation by management:

Fiscal Year 2025-2026
GASB Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements GASB Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets Future Projects
Comprehensive Project, Revenue and Expense Recognition
Major Project, Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress Major Project, Infrastructure Assets
Practice Issue, Subsequent Events
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the information and use of City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Very truly yours,
Irvine, California

LSLCPAS.COM
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON

COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Irwindale Housing Successor
City of Irwindale, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the City of Irwindale Housing Successor (hereafter, Housing Successor) of the City of Irwindale, California (hereafter, the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 2025.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over the Housing Successor’s financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements, on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Fund’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, including the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Applicable to California Housing Successor Agencies, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.

However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Irwindale Housing Successor
City of Irwindale, California
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the Successor’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Successor’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Irvine, California
November 20, 2025
14

LSLCPAS.COM
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT ON AGREED-UPON

PROCEDURES APPLIED TO APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT WORKSHEETS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation) of the City of Irwindale, California, for the year ended June 30, 2025.

These procedures are the responsibility of the City, which were agreed to by the City of Irwindale and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the City of Irwindale in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. The City of Irwindale's management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation).

The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of recomputing the Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation). This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.

The procedures performed and our findings were as follows:

1. We obtained the completed Worksheets No. 1 through No. 7 (or other alternative computations) and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors included in those worksheets to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by resolution of the City Council. We also compared the population and inflation options included in the aforementioned worksheets to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6, we multiplied line A, last year's limit, by line D, ratio of change and compared the resulting amount to line E, this year's limit.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 to the other worksheets described in No. 1 above.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

4. We compared the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council for the prior year.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
We were engaged by the City to perform this agreed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the AICPA. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review engagement, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation). Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement.

This report is intended solely for the information of the City Council and management of the City of Irwindale and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Irvine, California
June 16, 2025

CITY OF IRWINDALE
2024-2025

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION
A. 2023-2024 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: $13,590,371,945
B. 2024-2025 CHANGE IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL
INCOME: 3.62%
C. 2024-2025 CHANGE IN POPULATION: 0.74%
D. RATIO OF CHANGE (1.0362 x 1.0074) x 1.04386788
E. 2024-2025 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: $14,186,552,751
($13,590,371,945 x 1.04386788)

Item #19.B.

Date: March 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Issue: Audit Report on the Federal Awards for the Year Ended June 30, 2025 City Manager's Recommendation:

Receive and file the Audit Report on the Federal Awards for the Year Ended June 30, 2025.

Administrative Action:

Submitted, Prepared, & Reviewed by:

Kambiz Borhani, Finance Director / City Treasurer
Approved by:

Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Background and Analysis:

The Single Audit Report on Federal Awards (Single Audit) for the Year Ended June 30, 2025, is submitted for City Council approval. The deadline for the Single Audit is March 31, 2026. The Single Audit was posted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. The Single Audit was also posted to the State of California, State Controller’s Office on Tuesday, March 10, 2026.

The City was required to conduct a single audit this year because the City met the $750,000 federal grant expenditure threshold. The Single Audit is specifically designed to meet the needs of all federal grantor agencies from which the City receives funds. Total federal assistance amounted to $917,093.78 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The one major program over $500,000 was Department of Justice, Asset Forfeiture for $574,299.03. The independent auditors noted no findings in this report for the year ended June 30, 2025.

Fiscal Impact:

The Audit Report on Federal Awards summarizes the expenditure of $750,000 or more of federal assistance (commonly known as federal funds, federal grants, or federal awards) received by the City of Irwindale for its operation as of June 30, 2025. There is no fiscal impact to approve this audit report.

Attachments:

1. Single Audit Report for FY ended June 30, 2025

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Single Audit Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Single Audit Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Table Of Contents
Page
Number
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards .............................................................................................. 1 Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance ............................................................................................................ 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 ......................................................................................................................... 6 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................................ 7 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for the
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 ......................................................................................................................... 8

LSLCPAS.COM
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON

COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Irwindale, California (hereafter, the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated January 28, 2026.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over the Fund’s financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements, on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.

However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Irvine, California
January 28, 2026
2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR PROGRAM

AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF

FEDERAL AWARDS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Irwindale, California (hereafter, the City)’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements identified as subject to audit in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2025. The City’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditors’ results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2025.

Basis for Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program.

Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s federal programs.

LSLCPAS.COM

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting fromerror, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of each major federal program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. • Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis.

A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.

A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified. 4

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Irwindale, California
Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance.

Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon January 28, 2026, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements.

The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Irvine, California
March 6, 2026 (Except for the Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance, which is dated January 28, 2026)
5

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Federal
Assistance
Federal Grantor/Pass-through Grantor/ Listing Pass-Through Entity Passed-through Total Federal Program or Cluster Title Number Identifying Number to Subrecipients Expenditures U.S. Department of Justice:

Direct Programs:

Equtable Sharing Program * 16.922 N/A $ - $ 574,299
Body Worn Camera (BWC) Policy and Implementation 16.835 N/A - 60,000 Total U.S. Department of Justice - 634,299
U.S. Department of Transportation:

Passthrough Programs:

State of California Department of Transportation
Highway Safety Cluster
OTS Step Grant 20.611, 20.600, 20.608 EHEGWCLJEVJ4 - 38,127 Total Highway Safety Cluster - 38,127
Total U.S. Department of Transportation - 38,127
U.S. Department of the Treasury:

Passthrough Programs:

Sustainable Economic Enterprises of Los Angeles
COVID-19--Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 21.027 RN15SP9CPJE6 - 64,183 Imperial County Transportation Commission
Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund 21.029 D9KXK8SRNEL4 - 11,034 Direct Programs:

Safe Streets and Roads For All - SS4A 20.939 N/A - 140,838 Total U.S. Department of the Treasury - 216,055
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

Pass Through Programs:

Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Grants-Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 UTM3S7LKYQZ4 - 7,500 Direct Programs:

Hazard Mitigation Grant 97.039 N/A - 21,114
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security - 28,614
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards Including Loans $ - $ 917,095 * Major Program
There were no federal awards expended in the form of noncash assistance and insurance in effect during the year.

See Accompanying Notes to this Schedule.
6

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 1: BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying schedule presents only the expenditures incurred by the City of Irwindale, California (the “City”), that are reimbursable under federal programs of federal financial assistance. For the purposes of this schedule, federal awards include both federal financial assistance received directly from a federal agency, as well as federal funds received indirectly by the City from a non-federal agency or other organization. Only the portion of program expenditures reimbursable with such federal funds is reported in the accompanying schedule. Program expenditures in excess of the maximum federal reimbursement authorized or the portion of the program expenditures that were funded with state, local or other non-federal funds are excluded from the accompanying schedule.

NOTE 2: BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
The expenditures included in the accompanying schedule were reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are incurred when the City becomes obligated for payment as a result of the receipt of the related goods and services. Expenditures reported included any property or equipment acquisitions incurred under the federal program.

NOTE 3: INDIRECT COST RATE
The City has elected not to use the de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. 7

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025

SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS' RESULTS
Financial Statements
Type of auditors' report issued: Unmodified Opinion
Internal control over financial reporting:
• Material weaknesses identified? Yes X No
• Significant deficiencies identified? Yes X None reported Noncompliance material to financial
statements noted? Yes X No
Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
• Material weaknesses identified? Yes X No
• Significant deficiencies identified? Yes X None reported Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified Opinion Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance)? Yes X No
Identification of major programs:

Assistance Listing Number(s) Name of Federal Program or Cluster

16.922 Equitable Sharing Program
Dollar threshold used to distinguish
between type A and type B program $750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? Yes X No
8

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
No matters were reported.

SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS No matters were reported.
9

Item #19.C.

Date: March 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Issue: June 30, 2025, Actuarial Study of the City of Irwindale Retiree Health Liabilities for the Fiscal Year 20205-2026
City Manager's Recommendation:

Receive and file the June 30, 2025, actuarial study of the City of Irwindale Retiree Health liabilities for the Fiscal Year 20205-2026.

Administrative Action:

Submitted & Prepared by:

Kambiz Borhani, Finance Director / City Treasurer

Approved by:

Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Background and Analysis:

Per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 75, requires local government employers to conduct an actuarial valuation of their Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) plans at least every two years. While biennial valuations are the minimum requirement for measuring the total OPEB liability, more frequent calculations are encouraged, particularly if significant changes occur.

The City of Irwindale has, in its past dealings with its employees through Memorandums of Understandings (MOU’s) and informal agreements with its non-represented employees, provided a number of benefits that may carry on beyond their employment years with the City, and for the life of the employee. These benefits are retirement pensions and medical insurance and are accrued as a condition of employment. Retirement benefits through the CalPERS system have been well documented and future liabilities for these benefits are accurately portrayed in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

To address the requirements, the City contracted with Total Compensation, Inc. (June 2008), which, effective July 1, 2025, was acquired by Foster & Foster Actuaries and Consultants

("Consultant"), to prepare the actuarial study which provides crucial financial transparency and helps the City measure the true cost of retiree health benefits as they are earned rather than when paid.

Tonight, this study (Exhibit "A"), which was prepared on February 11, 2026, for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2026, using June 30, 2025, employee demographics and a 6.75% discount rate, will be presented to the City Council by the Consultant.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact of receiving and filing this report.

Attachments:

1. Exhibit A - Actuarial Study of Retiree Health Liabilities - issued on February 11, 2026

City of Irwindale
Actuarial Study of
Retiree Health Liabilities Under GASB 74/75
Valuation Date: June 30, 2025
Measurement Date: June 30, 2025
For Fiscal Year-End: June 30, 2026
Prepared by:

Foster & Foster Actuaries and Consultants
(Formerly Total Compensation Systems, Inc.)
Date: February 11, 2026

Table of Contents
PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................1 B. KEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................................1 C. SUMMARY OF GASB 75 ACCOUNTING RESULTS........................................................................................................................2

1. Changes in Net OPEB Liability..............................................................................................................................................2

2. Deferred Inflows and Outflows..............................................................................................................................................3

3. OPEB Expense........................................................................................................................................................................3

4. Adjustments.............................................................................................................................................................................3

5. Trend and Interest Rate Sensitivities......................................................................................................................................3 D. DESCRIPTION OF RETIREE BENEFITS...........................................................................................................................................4 E. SUMMARY OF VALUATION DATA................................................................................................................................................4 F. CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................5 PART II: LIABILITIES AND COSTS FOR RETIREE BENEFITS.....................................................7 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................7 B. LIABILITY FOR RETIREE BENEFITS..............................................................................................................................................7 C. ACTUARIAL ACCRUAL.................................................................................................................................................................8 D. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................................................................................................................8 E. TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY .............................................................................................................................................................9 F. VALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................10

1. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefit Payments (APVPBP) ..................................................................................10

2. Service Cost ..........................................................................................................................................................................10

3. Total OPEB Liability and Net OPEB Liability ....................................................................................................................11

4. “Pay As You Go" Projection of Retiree Benefit Payments...................................................................................................11 G. ADDITIONAL RECONCILIATION OF GASB 75 RESULTS............................................................................................................12 H. PROCEDURES FOR FUTURE VALUATIONS..................................................................................................................................13 PART III: ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS..............................................................14 A. ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS: ..............................................................................................................14 B. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS:...............................................................................................................................................15 C. NON-ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS:.....................................................................................................................................16 PART IV: APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BY AGE....................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX B: ADMINISTRATIVE BEST PRACTICES .........................................................................................................18 APPENDIX C: GASB 74/75 ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND DISCLOSURES .....................................................................19 APPENDIX D: DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES..................24 APPENDIX E: GLOSSARY OF RETIREE HEALTH VALUATION TERMS ........................................................................27

1 City of Irwindale
Actuarial Study of Retiree Health Liabilities
PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction
This report was produced by Foster & Foster, Inc. for City of Irwindale to determine the liabilities associated with its current retiree health program as of a June 30, 2025 measurement date and to provide the necessary information to determine accounting entries for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. This report may not be suitable for other purposes such as determining employer contributions or assessing the potential impact of changes in plan design.

Different users of this report will likely be interested in different sections of information contained within.

We anticipate that the following portions may be of most interest depending on the reader:
➢ A high level comparison of key results from the current year to the prior year is shown on this page. ➢ The values we anticipate will be disclosed in the June 30, 2026 year-end financials are shown on pages 2 and 3.
➢ Additional accounting information is shown on page 12 and Appendices C and D. ➢ Description and details of measured valuation liabilities can be found beginning on page 10. ➢ Guidance regarding the next actuarial valuation for the June 30, 2026 measurement date is provided on page 13.

B. Key Results
Irwindale uses an Actuarial Measurement Date that is 12 months prior to its Fiscal Year-End. This means that these actuarial results measured as of June 30, 2025 will be used on a look back basis for the June 30, 2026 Fiscal Year-End.

Key Results Current Year
June 30, 2025 Measurement Date
for June 30, 2026 Fiscal Year-End
Prior Year
June 30, 2024 Measurement Date
for June 30, 2025 Fiscal Year-End
Total OPEB Liability (TOL) $32,191,166 $24,027,537
Fiduciary Net Position (FNP) $10,358,433 $7,761,187
Net OPEB Liability (NOL) $21,832,733 $16,266,350
Service Cost (for year following) $864,683 $517,790
Estimated Pay-as-you-go Amount (for year following) $1,571,316 $1,132,396 GASB 75 OPEB Expense (for year ending) $3,088,789 $2,367,674 Refer to results section beginning on page 10 or the glossary on page 27 for descriptions of the above items.

Key Assumptions Current Year
June 30, 2025 Measurement Date
for June 30, 2026 Fiscal Year-End
Prior Year
June 30, 2024 Measurement Date
for June 30, 2025 Fiscal Year-End
Valuation Interest Rate 6.75% 6.75%
Expected Rate of Return on Assets 6.75% 6.75%
Long-Term Medical Trend Rate 4.00% 4.00%
Projected Payroll Growth 2.75% 2.75%

2 Portion of Key Measurements Due to Implicit Rate Subsidy The implicit rate subsidy represents the difference between retiree premium rates and the underlying cost of retiree coverage. Because medical costs generally increase with age, the direct premium rate for pre-Medicare retirees will typically fall short of the underlying cost of retiree coverage when the premium rates are determined by blending active employees and pre-Medicare retirees. GASB 75 requires the underlying cost to be reflected in most cases, so OPEB actuaries develop age-adjusted costs to estimate the underlying cost of coverage solely for retirees.

Below is a breakdown of key measurements between the portion due to the employer share of retiree premiums and the portion due to the implicit rate subsidy. Although the two pieces are typically treated the same under GASB 75, the distinction can be important for planning purposes because the implicit rate subsidy will not be paid directly in the same way that the employer share of retiree premiums will be paid.

June 30, 2025
Measurement Date
Portion due to Employer
Share of Retiree Premium
Portion due to
Implicit Rate Subsidy Total
Total OPEB Liability $28,522,941 $3,668,225 $32,191,166 Service Cost (for year following) $738,802 $125,881 $864,683 The following table shows the “pay as you go” projection of annual payments for the employer share of retiree health costs as well as the projected annual amount of the implicit rate subsidy. Although actual payments are certain to vary from those shown below, these projections can be useful for planning purposes.

Year Beginning
July 1
Employer
Share of Retiree Premium Implicit Rate Subsidy
Total Projected
Benefit Payments
2025 $1,340,825 $230,491 $1,571,316
2026 $1,412,733 $217,864 $1,630,597
2027 $1,467,339 $212,904 $1,680,243
2028 $1,541,163 $193,510 $1,734,673
2029 $1,649,635 $218,836 $1,868,471
2030 $1,707,975 $244,407 $1,952,382
2031 $1,825,223 $301,217 $2,126,440
2032 $1,927,393 $310,807 $2,238,200
2033 $2,065,631 $370,262 $2,435,893
2034 $2,203,603 $445,536 $2,649,139
C. Summary of GASB 75 Accounting Results

1. Changes in Net OPEB Liability
The following table shows the reconciliation of the June 30, 2024 Net OPEB Liability (NOL) in the prior valuation to the June 30, 2025 NOL. A more detailed version of this table can be found on page 12.

TOL FNP NOL
Balance at June 30, 2024 Measurement Date $24,027,537 $7,761,187 $16,266,350 Service Cost $517,790 $0 $517,790
Interest on TOL / Return on FNP $1,601,116 $1,100,073 $501,043 Employer Contributions $0 $2,747,077 ($2,747,077)
Benefit Payments ($1,247,077) ($1,247,077) $0
Administrative Expenses $0 ($2,827) $2,827
Experience (Gains)/Losses $3,723,451 $0 $3,723,451
Changes in Assumptions $3,568,349 $0 $3,568,349
Other $0 $0 $0
Net Change $8,163,629 $2,597,246 $5,566,383
Actual Balance at June 30, 2025 Measurement Date $32,191,166 $10,358,433 $21,832,733

3 2. Deferred Inflows and Outflows
Changes in the NOL arising from certain sources are recognized on a deferred basis. The following tables show the balance of each deferral item as of the measurement date and the scheduled future recognition. A reconciliation of these balances can be found on page 12 while the complete deferral history is shown beginning on page 24.

Balances at June 30, 2026 Fiscal Year-End Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows Differences between expected and actual experience $4,297,770 ($43,751) Changes in assumptions $4,425,546 ($1,022,668)
Differences between projected and actual return on assets $0 ($295,245) Total $8,723,316 ($1,361,664)
To be recognized fiscal year ending June 30: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows 2027 $1,831,994 ($101,125)
2028 $1,592,660 ($369,325)
2029 $1,412,660 ($353,419)
2030 $1,320,783 ($301,799)
2031 $1,030,107 ($196,668)
Thereafter $1,535,112 ($39,328)
Total $8,723,316 ($1,361,664)

3. OPEB Expense
Under GASB 74 and 75, OPEB expense includes service cost, interest cost, administrative expenses, and change in TOL due to plan changes, adjusted for deferred inflows and outflows. OPEB expense can also be derived as change in net position, adjusted for employer contributions, which can be found on page 12.

To be recognized fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 Expense Component Service Cost $517,790
Interest Cost $1,601,116
Expected Return on Assets ($574,410)
Administrative Expenses $2,827
Recognition of Experience (Gain)/Loss Deferrals $947,033 Recognition of Assumption Change Deferrals $691,861
Recognition of Investment (Gain)/Loss Deferrals ($97,428) Employee Contributions $0
Changes in Benefit Terms $0
Net OPEB Expense for fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 $3,088,789

4. Adjustments
The above OPEB expense includes all deferred inflows and outflows except any contributions after the measurement date. Contributions from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 minus prior contributions after the measurement date of $997,662 should also be reflected in OPEB expense. June 30, 2026 deferred outflows should include contributions from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026.

5. Trend and Interest Rate Sensitivities
The following presents what the Net OPEB Liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate assumption or a healthcare trend rate assumption one percent higher or lower than the current assumption.

Net OPEB Liability at June 30, 2025 Measurement Date Discount Rate Healthcare Trend Rate 1% Decrease in Assumption $25,895,529 $18,004,397
Current Assumption $21,832,733 $21,832,733
1% Increase in Assumption $18,466,338 $26,546,170

4 D. Description of Retiree Benefits
Following is a description of the current retiree benefit plan:

Miscellaneous Safety
Benefit types provided Medical only Medical only
Duration of Benefits Lifetime Lifetime
Required Service* Government Code Section 22893
requirements
Government Code Section 22893
requirements
Minimum Age 50 50
Dependent Coverage Yes Yes
City Contribution %* 50% of premium with 10 years of service grading to 100% of cap at 20 years of
service
50% of premium with 10 years of service
grading to 100% of cap at 20 years of
service
City Cap None None
*Those hired prior to July 1, 2011 only require five years of service to receive 100% of cap E. Summary of Valuation Data
This report is based on census data provided to us as of June, 2025. Distributions of participants by age and service can be found on page 17. For non-lifetime benefits, the active count below excludes employees for whom it is not possible to receive retiree benefits (e.g. employees who are already older than the maximum age to which benefits are payable or who will not accrue the required service prior to reaching the maximum age).

Current Year
June 30, 2025 Valuation Date
June 30, 2025 Measurement Date
Prior Year
June 30, 2023 Valuation Date
June 30, 2024 Measurement Date
Active Employees eligible for future benefits
Count 119 106
Average Age 43.9 43.9
Average Years of Service 11.9 13.2
Retirees currently receiving benefits
Count 88 83
Average Age 69.5 68.7
We were not provided with information about any terminated, vested employees.

5 F. Certification
The actuarial information in this report is intended solely to assist Irwindale in complying with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Accounting Statement 74 and 75 and, unless otherwise stated, fully and fairly discloses actuarial information required for compliance. Nothing in this report should be construed as an accounting opinion, accounting advice or legal advice. Foster & Foster recommends that third parties retain their own actuary or other qualified professionals when reviewing this report. Foster & Foster’s work is prepared solely for the use and benefit of Irwindale. Release of this report may be subject to provisions of the Agreement between Irwindale and Foster & Foster. No third party recipient of this report product should rely on the report for any purpose other than accounting compliance. Any other use of this report is unauthorized without first consulting with Foster & Foster.

This report is for fiscal year July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026, using a measurement date of June 30, 2025. The calculations in this report have been made based on our understanding of plan provisions and actual practice at the time we were provided the required information. We relied on information provided by Irwindale. Much or all of this information was unaudited at the time of our evaluation. We reviewed the information provided for reasonableness, but this review should not be viewed as fulfilling any audit requirements. We relied on the following materials to complete this study:
➢ We used paper reports and digital files containing participant demographic data from the City personnel records.
➢ We used relevant sections of collective bargaining agreements provided by the City.

All costs, liabilities, and other estimates are based on actuarial assumptions and methods that comply with all applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs). Each assumption is deemed to be reasonable by itself, taking into account plan experience and reasonable future expectations and in combination represent our estimate of anticipated experience of the Plan.

This report contains estimates of the Plan's financial condition and future results only as of a single date.

Future results can vary dramatically and the accuracy of estimates contained in this report depends on the actuarial assumptions used. This valuation cannot predict the Plan's future condition nor guarantee its future financial soundness. Actuarial valuations do not affect the ultimate cost of Plan benefits, only the timing of Plan contributions.

While the valuation is based on individually reasonable assumptions, other assumption sets may also be reasonable and valuation results based on those assumptions would be different. Determining results using alternative assumptions (except for the alternate discount and trend rates shown in this report) is outside the scope of our engagement.

Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from those presented in this report due to factors such as, but not limited to, the following: plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; changes in economic or demographic assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the measurement methodology (such as the end of an amortization period or additional cost or contribution requirements based on the plan’s funded status); and changes in plan provisions or applicable law. We were not asked to perform analyses to estimate the potential range of such future measurements.

The signing actuary is independent of Irwindale and any plan sponsor. Foster & Foster does not intend to benefit from and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this report. Foster & Foster is not aware of any relationship that would impair the objectivity of the opinion.

On the basis of the foregoing, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this report is complete and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices and all

6 applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice. I meet the Qualifications Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Will Kane, FSA, EA, MAAA
Actuary
Foster & Foster, Inc.

7 PART II: LIABILITIES AND COSTS FOR RETIREE BENEFITS
A. Introduction.

We calculated the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments (APVPBP) separately for each participant. We determined eligibility for retiree benefits based on information supplied by Irwindale. We then selected assumptions that, based on plan provisions and our training and experience, represent our best prediction of future plan experience. For each participant, we applied the appropriate assumption factors based on the participant's age, sex, length of service, and employee classification.

The actuarial assumptions used for this study are summarized beginning on page 14.

B. Liability for Retiree Benefits.

For each participant, we projected future premium costs using an assumed trend rate (see Appendix C). To the extent Irwindale uses contribution caps, the influence of the trend factor is further reduced. We multiplied each future year's benefit payments by the probability that benefits will be paid; i.e. based on the probability that the participant is living, has not terminated employment, has retired and remains eligible. The probability that benefit will be paid in any future year is zero if the participant will not be eligible. The participant will not be eligible if s/he will not have met minimum service, minimum age or, if applicable, maximum age requirements.

The product of each year's benefit payments and the probability the benefit will be paid equals the expected cost for that year. We multiplied the above expected cost figures by the probability that the retiree would elect coverage. A retiree may not elect to be covered if retiree health coverage is available less expensively from another source (e.g. Medicare risk contract) or the retiree is covered under a spouse's plan. Finally, we discounted the expected cost for each year to the measurement date June 30, 2025 at 6.75% interest.

For any current retirees, the approach used was similar. The major difference is that the probability of payment for current retirees depends only on mortality and age restrictions (i.e. for retired employees the probability of being retired and of not being terminated are always both 100%).

The value generated from the process described above is called the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments (APVPBP). We added APVPBP for each participant to get the total APVPBP for all participants which is the estimated present value of all future retiree health benefits for all current participants. The APVPBP is the amount on June 30, 2025 that, if all actuarial assumptions are exactly right, would be sufficient to expense all promised benefits until the last participant dies or reaches the maximum eligibility age. However, for most actuarial and accounting purposes, the APVPBP is not used directly but is instead apportioned over the lifetime of each participant as described in the following sections.

8 C. Actuarial Accrual
Accounting principles provide that the cost of retiree benefits should be “accrued” over employees' working lifetime. For this reason, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued in June of 2015 Accounting Standards 74 and 75 for retiree health benefits. These standards apply to all public employers that pay any part of the cost of retiree health benefits for current or future retirees (including early retirees), whether they pay directly or indirectly (via an “implicit rate subsidy”).

To actuarially accrue retiree health benefits requires determining the amount to expense each year so that the liability accumulated at retirement is, on average, sufficient (with interest) to cover all retiree health expenditures without the need for additional expenses. There are many different ways to determine the annual accrual amount.

The calculation method used is called an “actuarial cost method” and uses the APVPBP to develop expense and liability figures. Furthermore, the APVPBP should be accrued over the working lifetime of employees.

In order to accrue the APVPBP over the working lifetime of employees, actuarial cost methods apportion the APVPBP into two parts: the portions attributable to service rendered prior to the measurement date (the past service liability or Total OPEB Liability (TOL) under GASB 74 and 75) and to service after the measurement date but prior to retirement (the future service liability or present value of future service costs). Of the future service liability, the portion attributable to the single year immediately following the measurement date is known as the normal cost or Service Cost under GASB 74 and 75.

The service cost can be thought of as the value of the benefit earned each year if benefits are accrued during the working lifetime of employees. The actuarial cost method mandated by GASB 75 is the “entry age actuarial cost method”. Under the entry age actuarial cost method, the actuary determines the service cost as the annual amount needing to be expensed from hire until retirement to fully accrue the cost of retiree health benefits. Under GASB 75, the service cost is calculated to be a level percentage of each employee’s projected pay.

D. Actuarial Assumptions
The APVPBP and service cost are determined using several key assumptions:
➢ The current cost of retiree health benefits (often varying by age, Medicare status and/or dependent coverage). The higher the current cost of retiree benefits, the higher the service cost. ➢ The “trend” rate at which retiree health benefits are expected to increase over time. A higher trend rate increases the service cost. A “cap” on City contributions can reduce trend to zero once the cap is reached thereby dramatically reducing service costs. ➢ Mortality rates varying by age and sex (and sometimes retirement or disability status). If employees die prior to retirement, past contributions are available to fund benefits for employees who live to retirement. After retirement, death results in benefit termination or reduction. Although higher mortality rates reduce service costs, the mortality assumption is not likely to vary from employer to employer.
➢ Employment termination rates have the same effect as mortality inasmuch as higher termination rates reduce service costs. Employment termination can vary considerably between public agencies. ➢ The service requirement reflects years of service required to earn full or partial retiree benefits.

While a longer service requirement reduces costs, cost reductions are not usually substantial unless the service period exceeds 20 years of service.

9 ➢ Retirement rates determine what proportion of employees retire at each age (assuming employees reach the requisite length of service). Retirement rates often vary by employee classification and implicitly reflect the minimum retirement age required for eligibility. Retirement rates also depend on the amount of pension benefits available. Higher retirement rates increase service costs but, except for differences in minimum retirement age, retirement rates tend to be consistent between public agencies for each employee type.
➢ Participation rates indicate what proportion of retirees are expected to elect retiree health benefits if a significant retiree contribution is required. Higher participation rates increase costs. ➢ The discount rate estimates investment earnings for assets earmarked to cover retiree health benefit liabilities. The discount rate depends on the nature of underlying assets for funded plans. The rate used for a funded plan is the real rate of return expected for plan assets plus the long term inflation assumption. For an unfunded plan, the discount rate is based on an index of 20 year General Obligation municipal bonds rated AA or higher. For partially funded plans, the discount rate is a blend of the funded and unfunded rates.

E. Total OPEB Liability
The assumptions listed above are not exhaustive, but are the most common assumptions used in actuarial cost calculations. If all actuarial assumptions are exactly met and an employer expensed the service cost every year for all past and current employees and retirees, a sizeable liability would have accumulated (after adding interest and subtracting retiree benefit costs). The liability that would have accumulated is called the Total OPEB Liability (TOL). The excess of TOL over the value of plan assets is called the Net OPEB Liability (NOL). Under GASB 74 and 75, in order for assets to count toward offsetting the TOL, the assets have to be held in an irrevocable trust that is safe from creditors and can only be used to provide OPEB benefits to eligible participants.

Changes in the TOL can arise in several ways - e.g., as a result of plan changes or changes in actuarial assumptions. Change in the TOL can also arise from actuarial gains and losses. Actuarial gains and losses result from differences between actuarial assumptions and actual plan experience. GASB 75 allows certain changes in the TOL to be deferred (i.e. deferred inflows and outflows of resources).

Under GASB 74 and 75, a portion of actuarial gains and losses can be deferred as follows:
➢ Investment gains and losses are deferred five years.
➢ Experience gains and losses are deferred over the Expected Average Remaining Service Lives (EARSL) of plan participants. In calculating the EARSL, terminated employees (primarily retirees) are considered to have a working lifetime of zero. This often makes the EARSL quite short. ➢ Liability changes resulting from changes in economic and demographic assumptions are also deferred based on the EARSL.
➢ Liability changes resulting from plan changes, for example, cannot be deferred.

10 F. Valuation Results
This section details the measured values of the concepts described on the previous pages.

1. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefit Payments (APVPBP) Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefit Payments as of June 30, 2025 Valuation Date Total
General
Employees
Police
Officers
Active: Pre-65 Benefit $11,263,107 $5,992,942 $0 $5,270,165 Post-65 Benefit $10,571,843 $6,833,115 $0 $3,738,728
Subtotal $21,834,950 $12,826,057 $0 $9,008,893
Retiree: Pre-65 Benefit $5,268,111 $1,995,444 $0 $3,272,667 Post-65 Benefit $12,933,495 $7,026,817 $0 $5,906,678
Subtotal $18,201,606 $9,022,261 $0 $9,179,345
Grand Total $40,036,556 $21,848,318 $0 $18,188,238
Subtotal Pre-65 Benefit $16,531,218 $7,988,386 $0 $8,542,832 Subtotal Post-65 Benefit $23,505,338 $13,859,932 $0 $9,645,406

2. Service Cost
The service cost represents the value of the benefit earned during a single year of employment. It is the APVPBP spread over the expected working lifetime of the employee and divided into annual segments. We applied an "entry age" actuarial cost method to determine funding rates for active employees. The table below summarizes the calculated service cost.

Service Cost Valuation Year Beginning July 1, 2025
Total
General
Employees
Police
Officers
# of Eligible Employees 119 90 0 29
First Year Service Cost
Pre-65 Benefit $399,452 $201,150 $0 $198,302
Post-65 Benefit $465,231 $288,360 $0 $176,871
Total $864,683 $489,510 $0 $375,173
Accruing retiree health benefit costs using service costs levels out the cost of retiree health benefits over time and more fairly reflects the value of benefits "earned" each year by employees. While the service cost for each employee is targeted to remain level as a percentage of covered payroll, the service cost as a dollar amount would increase each year based on covered payroll. Additionally, the overall service cost may grow or shrink based on changes in the demographic makeup of the employees from year to year.

11 3. Total OPEB Liability and Net OPEB Liability
If actuarial assumptions are borne out by experience, the City will fully accrue retiree benefits by expensing an amount each year that equals the service cost. If no accruals had taken place in the past, there would be a shortfall of many years' accruals, accumulated interest and forfeitures for terminated or deceased employees. This shortfall is called the Total OPEB Liability. We calculated the Total OPEB Liability (TOL) as the APVPBP minus the present value of future service costs. To the extent that benefits are funded through a GASB 74 qualifying trust, the trust’s Fiduciary Net Position (FNP) is subtracted to get the NOL. The FNP is the value of assets adjusted for any applicable payables and receivables as shown in the table on page 15.

Total OPEB Liability and Net OPEB Liability as of June 30, 2025 Valuation Date Total
General
Employees Police Officers
Active: Pre-65 Benefit 7,515,595 $4,036,833 $0 $3,478,762 Active: Post-65 Benefit $6,473,524 $4,241,132 $0 $2,232,392 Subtotal $13,989,119 $8,277,965 $0 $5,711,154
Retiree: Pre-65 Benefit $5,268,224 $1,995,510 $0 $3,272,714 Retiree: Post-65 Benefit $12,933,823 $7,027,040 $0 $5,906,783 Subtotal $18,202,047 $9,022,550 $0 $9,179,497
Subtotal: Pre-65 Benefit $12,783,819 $6,032,343 $0 $6,751,476 Subtotal: Post-65 Benefit $19,407,347 $11,268,172 $0 $8,139,175 Total OPEB Liability (TOL) $32,191,166 $17,300,515 $0 $14,890,651 Fiduciary Net Position as of
June 30, 2025 $10,358,433
Net OPEB Liability (NOL) $21,832,733

4. “Pay As You Go" Projection of Retiree Benefit Payments We used the actuarial assumptions shown in Appendix C to project the City’s ten year retiree benefit outlay, including any implicit rate subsidy. Because these cost estimates reflect average assumptions applied to a relatively small number of participants, estimates for individual years are certain to be inaccurate. However, these estimates show the size of cash outflow.

The following table shows a projection of annual amounts needed to pay the City’s share of retiree health costs, including any implicit rate subsidy.

Year Beginning
July 1 Total
General
Employees
Police
Officers
2025 $1,571,316 $901,758 $669,558
2026 $1,630,597 $899,849 $730,748
2027 $1,680,243 $913,581 $766,662
2028 $1,734,673 $918,005 $816,668
2029 $1,868,471 $995,061 $873,410
2030 $1,952,382 $999,283 $953,099
2031 $2,126,440 $1,074,347 $1,052,093
2032 $2,238,200 $1,079,426 $1,158,774
2033 $2,435,893 $1,210,672 $1,225,221
2034 $2,649,139 $1,318,103 $1,331,036

12 G. Additional Reconciliation of GASB 75 Results
The following table shows the reconciliation of the June 30, 2024 Net OPEB Liability (NOL) in the prior valuation to the June 30, 2025 NOL. For some plans, it will provide additional detail and transparency beyond that shown in the table on Page 2.

TOL FNP NOL
Balance at June 30, 2024 $24,027,537 $7,761,187 $16,266,350 Service Cost $517,790 $0 $517,790
Interest on Total OPEB Liability $1,601,116 $0 $1,601,116 Expected Investment Income $0 $574,410 ($574,410)
Administrative Expenses $0 ($2,827) $2,827
Employee Contributions $0 $0 $0
Employer Contributions to Trust $0 $1,500,000 ($1,500,000) Employer Contributions as Benefit Payments $0 $1,247,077 ($1,247,077) Actual Benefit Payments from Trust $0 $0 $0
Actual Benefit Payments from Employer ($1,247,077) ($1,247,077) $0 Expected Minus Actual Benefit Payments** $114,681 $0 $114,681 Expected Balance at June 30, 2025 $25,014,047 $9,832,770 $15,181,277 Experience (Gains)/Losses $3,608,770 $0 $3,608,770
Changes in Assumptions $3,568,349 $0 $3,568,349
Changes in Benefit Terms $0 $0 $0
Investment Gains/(Losses) $0 $525,663 ($525,663)
Other $0 $0 $0
Net Change during 2025 $8,163,629 $2,597,246 $5,566,383 Actual Balance at June 30, 2025* $32,191,166 $10,358,433 $21,832,733 * May include a slight rounding error.
** Deferrable as an Experience Gain or Loss.

Changes in the NOL arising from certain sources are recognized on a deferred basis. The deferral history for Irwindale is shown beginning on page 24. The following table summarizes the beginning and ending balances for each deferral item. The current year expense reflects the change in deferral balances for the measurement year.

Deferred Inflow/Outflow Balances Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026 Beginning Balance
Change Due to
New Deferrals
Change Due to
Recognition Ending Balance
Experience (Gains)/Losses $1,477,601 $3,723,451 ($947,033) $4,254,019 Assumption Changes $526,390 $3,568,349 ($691,861) $3,402,878 Investment (Gains)/Losses $132,990 ($525,663) $97,428 ($295,245) Deferred Balances $2,136,981 $6,766,137 ($1,541,466) $7,361,652 The following table shows the reconciliation of Net Position (NOL less the balance of any deferred inflows or outflows). When adjusted for contributions, the change in Net Position is equal to the OPEB expense shown previously on page 3.

Preliminary OPEB Expense Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026 Beginning Net Position Ending Net Position Change
Net OPEB Liability (NOL) $16,266,350 $21,832,733 $5,566,383 Deferred Balances $2,136,981 $7,361,652 $5,224,671
Net Position $14,129,369 $14,471,081 $341,712
Adjust Out Employer Contributions $2,747,077
OPEB Expense $3,088,789

13 H. Procedures for Future Valuations
GASB 74/75 require annual measurements of liability with a full actuarial valuation required every two years. This means that for the measurement date one year following a full actuarial valuation, a streamlined “rollforward” valuation may be performed in place of a full valuation. The following outlines the key differences between full and roll-forward valuations.

Full Actuarial Valuation Roll-Forward Valuation
Collect New Census Data Yes No
Reflect Updates to Plan Design Yes No
Update Actuarial Assumptions Yes Typically Not
Update Valuation Interest Rate Yes Yes
Actual Assets as of Measurement
Date
Yes Yes
Timing 4-6 weeks after information is received 1-2 weeks after information is received Fees Full Reduced
Information Needed from Employer Moderate Minimal
Required Frequency At least every two years Each year, unless a full valuation is performed The majority of employers use an alternating cycle of a full valuation one year followed by a roll-forward valuation the next year. However, a full valuation may be required or preferred under certain circumstances.

Following are examples of actions that could cause the employer to consider a full valuation instead of a rollforward valuation. ➢ The employer adds or terminates a group of participants that constitutes a significant part of the covered group.
➢ The employer considers or implements changes to retiree benefit provisions or eligibility requirements.
➢ The employer considers or puts in place an early retirement incentive program. ➢ The employer desires the measured liability to incorporate more recent census data or assumptions.

We anticipate that the next valuation we perform for Irwindale will be a roll-forward valuation with a measurement date of June 30, 2026 which will be used for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. Please let us know if Irwindale would like to discuss whether another full valuation would be preferable based on any of the examples listed above.

14 PART III: ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS
Following is a summary of actuarial assumptions and methods used in this study. The City should carefully review these assumptions and methods to make sure they reflect the City's assessment of its underlying experience.

It is important for Irwindale to understand that the appropriateness of all selected actuarial assumptions and methods are Irwindale’s responsibility. Unless otherwise disclosed in this report, Foster & Foster believes that all methods and assumptions are within a reasonable range based on the provisions of GASB 74 and 75, applicable actuarial standards of practice, Irwindale’s actual historical experience, and Foster & Foster’s judgment based on experience and training.

A. ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS:

ACTUARIAL COST METHOD: GASB 74 and 75 require use of the entry age actuarial cost method.

Entry age is based on the age at hire for eligible employees. The attribution period is determined as the difference between the expected retirement age and the age at hire. The APVPBP and present value of future service costs are determined on a participant by participant basis and then aggregated.

SUBSTANTIVE PLAN: As required under GASB 74 and 75, we based the valuation on the substantive plan.

The formulation of the substantive plan was based on a review of written plan documents as well as historical information provided by Irwindale regarding practices with respect to employer and employee contributions and other relevant factors.

15 B. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS:

Economic assumptions are set under the guidance of Actuarial Standard of Practice 27 (ASOP 27). Among other things, ASOP 27 provides that economic assumptions should reflect a consistent underlying rate of general inflation.

For that reason, we show our assumed long-term inflation rate below.

INFLATION: We assumed 2.50% per year used for pension purposes. Actuarial standards require using the same rate for OPEB that is used for pension.

INVESTMENT RETURN / DISCOUNT RATE: We assumed 6.75% per year net of expenses. This is based on assumed long-term return on employer assets. We used the “Building Block Method”. (See Appendix C, Paragraph 53 for more information). Our assessment of long-term returns for employer assets is based on long-term historical returns for surplus funds invested pursuant to California Government Code Sections 53601 et seq.

TREND: We assumed 4.00% per year. Our long-term trend assumption is based on the conclusion that, while medical trend will continue to be cyclical, the average increase over time cannot continue to outstrip general inflation by a wide margin. Trend increases in excess of general inflation result in dramatic increases in unemployment, the number of uninsured and the number of underinsured. These effects are nearing a tipping point which will inevitably result in fundamental changes in health care finance and/or delivery which will bring increases in health care costs more closely in line with general inflation. We do not believe it is reasonable to project historical trend vs. inflation differences several decades into the future.

PAYROLL INCREASE: We assumed 2.75% per year. Since benefits do not depend on salary (as they do for pensions), this assumption is only used to determine the accrual pattern of the Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefit Payments.

FIDUCIARY NET POSITION (FNP): The following table shows the beginning and ending FNP numbers that were provided by Irwindale.

Fiduciary Net Position as of June 30, 2025
06/30/2024 06/30/2025
Cash and Equivalents $0 $0
Contributions Receivable $0 $0
Total Investments $7,761,187 $10,358,433
Capital Assets $0 $0
Total Assets $7,761,187 $10,358,433
Benefits Payable $0 $0
Fiduciary Net Position $7,761,187 $10,358,433

16 C. NON-ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS:

Economic assumptions are set under the guidance of Actuarial Standard of Practice 35 (ASOP 35). See Appendix C, Paragraph 52 for more information.

MORTALITY
Participant Type Mortality Tables
Police 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Safety Employees
Miscellaneous 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Miscellaneous and Schools Employees

RETIREMENT RATES
Employee Type Retirement Rate Tables
Police Officers Hired 2013 and later: 2025 CalPERS 2.7%@57 Rates for Police Employees Hired 2012 and earlier: 2025 CalPERS 3.0%@50 Rates for Police Employees General Employees Hired 2012 and earlier: 2025 CalPERS 2.0%@55 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees Hired 2013 and later: 2025 CalPERS 2.0%@62 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees

COSTS FOR RETIREE COVERAGE
Retiree liabilities are based on actual retiree premium plus an implicit rate subsidy of 35.7% of non-Medicare medical premium. Liabilities for active participants are based on the first year costs shown below, which include the implicit rate subsidy. Subsequent years’ costs are based on first year costs adjusted for trend and limited by any City contribution caps.

Participant Type Future Retirees Pre-65 Future Retirees Post-65 General Employees Employer portion of premium: $23,438
Implied rate subsidy: $8,368
$9,548
Police Officers Employer portion of premium: $26,410
Implied rate subsidy: $9,751
$14,842

PARTICIPATION RATES
Employee Type <65 Non-Medicare Participation % 65+ Medicare Participation % Police 100% 100%
Miscellaneous 100% 100%

TURNOVER
Employee Type Turnover Rate Tables
Police 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Police Employees
Miscellaneous 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Miscellaneous Employees

SPOUSE PREVALENCE
To the extent not provided and when needed to calculate benefit liabilities, 80% of retirees assumed to be married at retirement. After retirement, the percentage married is adjusted to reflect mortality.

SPOUSE AGES
To the extent spouse dates of birth are not provided and when needed to calculate benefit liabilities, female spouse assumed to be three years younger than male.

AGING FACTORS
We used aging factors from "Health Care Costs - From Birth to Death" prepared by Dale Yamamoto and published in 2013 by the Society of Actuaries as part of the Health Care Cost Institute's Independent Report Series - Report 2013-1.

17 PART IV: APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BY AGE

ELIGIBLE ACTIVE EMPLOYEES BY AGE AND EMPLOYEE CLASS
Age Total General Employees Police Officers
Under 25 4 4 0
25 – 29 11 6 5
30 – 34 13 11 2
35 – 39 17 15 2
40 – 44 14 8 6
45 – 49 25 19 6
50 – 54 19 13 6
55 – 59 8 6 2
60 – 64 3 3 0
65 and older 5 5 0
Total 119 90 0 29

ELIGIBLE ACTIVE EMPLOYEES BY AGE AND SERVICE
Total
Under 5
Years of
Service
5 – 9
Years of
Service
10 – 14
Years of
Service
15 –19
Years of
Service
20 – 24
Years of
Service
25 – 29
Years of
Service
30 – 34
Years of
Service
Over 34
Years of
Service
Under 25 4 4
25 – 29 11 8 3
30 – 34 13 10 1 1 1
35 – 39 17 5 4 1 4 3
40 – 44 14 6 3 1 3 1
45 – 49 25 4 4 2 3 7 2 3
50 – 54 19 4 4 5 2 2 2
55 – 59 8 4 1 1 2
60 – 64 3 1 1 1
65 and older 5 1 1 1 1 1
Total 119 46 21 6 19 14 2 6 5

ELIGIBLE RETIREES BY AGE AND EMPLOYEE CLASS
Age Total General Employees Police Officers
Under 50 1 0 1
50 – 54 5 0 5
55 – 59 7 5 2
60 – 64 14 10 4
65 – 69 20 13 7
70 – 74 21 13 8
75 – 79 6 5 1
80 – 84 9 7 2
85 – 89 4 3 1
90 and older 1 1 0
Total 88 57 0 31

18 APPENDIX B: ADMINISTRATIVE BEST PRACTICES
It is outside the scope of this report to make specific recommendations of actions Irwindale should take to manage the liability created by the current retiree health program. The following items are intended only to allow the City to get more information from this and future studies. Because we have not conducted a comprehensive administrative audit of Irwindale’s practices, it is possible that Irwindale is already complying with some or all of these suggestions.
➢ We suggest that Irwindale maintain an inventory of all benefits and services provided to retirees – whether contractually or not and whether retiree-paid or not. For each, Irwindale should determine whether the benefit is material and subject to GASB 74 and/or 75. ➢ Under GASB 75, it is important to isolate the cost of retiree health benefits. Irwindale should have all premiums, claims and expenses for retirees separated from active employee premiums, claims, expenses, etc. To the extent any retiree benefits are made available to retirees over the age of 65 – even on a retiree-pay-all basis – all premiums, claims and expenses for post-65 retiree coverage should be segregated from those for pre-65 coverage.

Furthermore, Irwindale should arrange for the rates or prices of all retiree benefits to be set on what is expected to be a self-sustaining basis.
➢ Irwindale should establish a way of designating employees as eligible or ineligible for future OPEB benefits. Ineligible employees can include those in ineligible job classes; those hired after a designated date restricting eligibility; those who, due to their age at hire cannot qualify for City-paid OPEB benefits; employees who exceed the termination age for OPEB benefits, etc. ➢ Several assumptions were made in estimating costs and liabilities under Irwindale's retiree health program. Further studies may be desired to validate any assumptions where there is any doubt that the assumption is appropriate. (See Part III of this report for a summary of assumptions.) For example, Irwindale should maintain a retiree database that includes – in addition to date of birth, gender and employee classification – retirement date and (if applicable) dependent date of birth, relationship and gender. It will also be helpful for Irwindale to maintain employment termination information – namely, the number of OPEB-eligible employees in each employee class that terminate employment each year for reasons other than death, disability or retirement.

19 APPENDIX C: GASB 74/75 ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND DISCLOSURES This report does not necessarily include the entire accounting values. As mentioned earlier, there are certain deferred items that are employer-specific. The City should consult with its auditor if there are any questions about what, if any, adjustments may be appropriate.

GASB 74/75 include a large number of items that should be included in the Note Disclosures and Required Supplementary Information (RSI) Schedules. Many of these items are outside the scope of the actuarial valuation.

However, following is information to assist the City in complying with GASB 74/75 disclosure requirements:

Paragraph 50: Information about the OPEB Plan
Most of the information about the OPEB plan should be supplied by Irwindale. Following is information to help fulfill Paragraph 50 reporting requirements.

50.c: Following is a table of plan participants
Number of
Participants
Inactive Employees Currently Receiving Benefit Payments 88 Inactive Employees Entitled to But Not Yet Receiving Benefit Payments*
0 Participating Active Employees 119
Total Number of participants 207
*We were not provided with information about any terminated, vested employees Paragraph 51: Significant Assumptions and Other Inputs
Shown in Part III.

Paragraph 52: Information Related to Assumptions and Other Inputs The following information is intended to assist Irwindale in complying with the requirements of Paragraph 52.

52.b: Mortality Assumptions Following are the tables the mortality assumptions are based upon. Inasmuch as these tables are based on appropriate populations, and that these tables are used for pension purposes, we believe these tables to be the most appropriate for the valuation.

Mortality Table 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Miscellaneous and Schools Employees
Disclosure The mortality assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Miscellaneous and Schools Employees table created by CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies mortality for participating agencies and establishes mortality tables that are modified versions of commonly used tables. This table incorporates mortality projection as deemed appropriate based on CalPERS analysis.

20 Mortality Table 20215 CalPERS Retiree Mortality for Miscellaneous and Schools Employees
Disclosure The mortality assumptions are based on the 20215 CalPERS Retiree Mortality for Miscellaneous and Schools Employees table created by CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies
mortality for participating agencies and establishes mortality tables that are modified versions of commonly used tables. This table incorporates mortality projection as deemed appropriate based on CalPERS analysis.

Mortality Table 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Safety Employees Disclosure The mortality assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS Mortality for Safety Employees table created by CalPERS.

CalPERS periodically studies mortality for participating agencies and establishes mortality tables that are modified versions of commonly used tables. This table incorporates mortality projection as deemed appropriate based on CalPERS analysis.

Mortality Table 2025 CalPERS Retiree Mortality for Safety Employees Disclosure The mortality assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS Retiree Mortality for Safety Employees table created by CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies mortality for
participating agencies and establishes mortality tables that are modified versions of commonly used tables. This table
incorporates mortality projection as deemed appropriate based on CalPERS analysis.

52.c: Experience Studies Following are the tables the retirement and turnover assumptions are based upon. Inasmuch as these tables are based on appropriate populations, and that these tables are used for pension purposes, we believe these tables to be the most appropriate for the valuation.

Retirement Tables
Retirement Table 2025 CalPERS 2.0%@55 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees Disclosure The retirement assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS

2.0%@55 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees table created by CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

Retirement Table 2025 CalPERS 2.0%@62 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees Disclosure The retirement assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS

2.0%@62 Rates for Miscellaneous Employees table created by CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

21 Retirement Table 2025 CalPERS 2.7%@57 Rates for Police Employees Disclosure The retirement assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS

2.7%@57 Rates for Police Employees table created by
CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

Retirement Table 2025 CalPERS 3.0%@50 Rates for Police Employees Disclosure The retirement assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS

3.0%@50 Rates for Police Employees table created by
CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

Turnover Tables
Turnover Table 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Miscellaneous Employees Disclosure The turnover assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Miscellaneous Employees table created by
CalPERS. CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

Turnover Table 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Police Employees Disclosure The turnover assumptions are based on the 2025 CalPERS Turnover for Police Employees table created by CalPERS.

CalPERS periodically studies the experience for participating agencies and establishes tables that are appropriate for each pool.

For other assumptions, we use actual plan provisions and plan data.

52.d: The alternative measurement method was not used in this valuation.

52.e: NOL using alternative trend assumptions The following table shows the Net OPEB Liability with a healthcare cost trend rate 1% higher and 1% lower than assumed in the valuation.

Trend 1% Lower Valuation Trend Trend 1% Higher
Net OPEB Liability $18,004,397 $21,832,733 $26,546,170
Paragraph 53: Discount Rate
The following information is intended to assist Irwindale to comply with Paragraph 53 requirements.

53.a: A discount rate of 6.75% was used in the valuation. The interest rate used in the prior valuation was 6.75%.

53.b: We assumed that all contributions are from the employer.

53.c: We used historic 32 year real rates of return for each asset class along with our

22 assumed long-term inflation assumption to set the discount rate. We offset the expected investment return by investment expenses of 25 basis points.

53.d: The interest assumption does not reflect a municipal bond rate.

53.e: Not applicable.

53.f: Following is the assumed asset allocation and assumed rate of return for each.

CERBT - Strategy 1
Asset Class
Percentage
of Portfolio
Assumed
Gross Return
All Equities 49.0000 7.2500
All Fixed Income 23.0000 4.2500
Real Estate Investment Trusts 20.0000 7.2500
All Commodities 3.0000 7.2500
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) 5.0000 3.0000 We looked at rolling periods of time for all asset classes in combination to appropriately reflect correlation between asset classes. That means that the average returns for any asset class don’t necessarily reflect the averages over time individually, but reflect the return for the asset class for the portfolio average. We used geometric means.

53.g: The following table shows the Net OPEB liability with a discount rate 1% higher and 1% lower than assumed in the valuation.

Discount Rate
1% Lower
Valuation
Discount Rate
Discount Rate
1% Higher
Net OPEB Liability $25,895,529 $21,832,733 $18,466,338
Paragraph 55: Changes in the Net OPEB Liability
Please see reconciliation on pages 2 or 12.

Paragraph 56: Additional Net OPEB Liability Information The following information is intended to assist Irwindale to comply with Paragraph 56 requirements.

56.a: The valuation date is June 30, 2025.

The measurement date is June 30, 2025.

56.b: We are not aware of a special funding arrangement.

56.c: Assumed rates of retirement, termination, and mortality have been updated to align with those currently being used by the statewide pension systems.

56.d: There were no changes in benefit terms since the prior measurement date.

56.e: Not applicable

56.f: To be determined by the employer

56.g: To be determined by the employer

56.h: Other than contributions after the measurement, all deferred inflow and outflow balances are shown on page 12 and in Appendix D

56.i: Future recognition of deferred inflows and outflows is shown in Appendix D Paragraph 57: Required Supplementary Information

23 57.a: Please see reconciliation on pages 2 or 12. Please see the notes for Paragraph 244 below for more information.

57.b: These items are provided on pages 2 and 12 for the current valuation, except for covered payroll, which should be determined based on appropriate methods.

57.c: We have not been asked to calculate an actuarially determined contribution amount.

We assume the City contributes on an ad hoc basis, but in an amount sufficient to fully fund the obligation over a period not to exceed 32 years.

57.d: We are not aware that there are any statutorily or contractually established contribution requirements.

Paragraph 58: Actuarially Determined Contributions
We have not been asked to calculate an actuarially determined contribution amount. We assume the City contributes on an ad hoc basis, but in an amount sufficient to fully fund the obligation over a period not to exceed 32 years.

Paragraph 244: Transition Option
Prior periods were not restated due to the fact that prior valuations were not rerun in accordance with GASB 75. It was determined that the time and expense necessary to rerun prior valuations and to restate prior financial statements was not justified.

24 APPENDIX D: DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES

EXPERIENCE GAINS AND LOSSES
Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense Arising from the Recognition of Effects of Experience Gains and Losses
(Measurement Periods)
Measurement
Period
Experience
(Gain)/Loss
Original
Recognition
Period
(Years)
Amounts
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
through 2024 2025
Amounts to be
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
after 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Thereafter
2018-19 $2,100,844 7.9 $1,595,580 $265,930 $239,334 $239,334 2019-20 ($181,919) 7.9 ($115,140) ($23,028) ($43,751) ($23,028) ($20,723) 2020-21 $252,667 7.1 $142,348 $35,587 $74,732 $35,587 $35,587 $3,558 2022-23 $1,286,029 7.2 $357,232 $178,616 $750,181 $178,616 $178,616 $178,616 $178,616 $35,717 2023-24 $0 0 $0 $0 $0
2024-25 $3,723,451 7.6 $0 $489,928 $3,233,523 $489,928 $489,928 $489,928 $489,928 $489,928 $783,883 Net Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense $1,980,020 $947,033 $4,254,019 $920,437 $683,408 $672,102 $668,544 $525,645 $783,883

25 CHANGES OF ASSUMPTIONS
Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense Arising from the Recognition of Effects of Changes of Assumptions
(Measurement Periods)
Measurement
Period
Changes of
Assumptions
Original
Recognition
Period
(Years)
Amounts
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
through 2024 2025
Amounts to be
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
after 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Thereafter
2020-21 $1,167,269 7.1 $657,620 $164,405 $345,244 $164,405 $164,405 $16,434 2021-22 $567,051 7.1 $239,601 $79,867 $247,583 $79,867 $79,867 $79,867 $7,982 2022-23 $1,258,101 7.2 $349,474 $174,737 $733,890 $174,737 $174,737 $174,737 $174,737 $34,942 2023-24 ($1,416,004) 7.2 ($196,668) ($196,668) ($1,022,668) ($196,668) ($196,668) ($196,668) ($196,668) ($196,668) ($39,328) 2024-25 $3,568,349 7.6 $0 $469,520 $3,098,829 $469,520 $469,520 $469,520 $469,520 $469,520 $751,229 Net Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense $1,050,027 $691,861 $3,402,878 $691,861 $691,861 $543,890 $455,571 $307,794 $711,901

26 INVESTMENT GAINS AND LOSSES
Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense Arising from the Recognition of Effects of Investment Gains and Losses
(Measurement Periods)
Measurement
Period
Investment
(Gain)/Loss
Original
Recognition
Period
(Years)
Amounts
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
through 2024 2025
Amounts to be
Recognized in
OPEB Expense
after 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Thereafter
2019-20 $176,501 5 $176,501 $0 $0
2020-21 ($1,080,004) 5 ($864,004) ($216,000) $0
2021-22 $1,352,519 5 $811,512 $270,504 $270,503 $270,503 2022-23 $24,108 5 $9,644 $4,822 $9,642 $4,822 $4,820
2023-24 ($258,102) 5 ($51,621) ($51,621) ($154,860) ($51,621) ($51,621) ($51,618) 2024-25 ($525,663) 5 $0 ($105,133) ($420,530) ($105,133) ($105,133) ($105,133) ($105,131) Net Increase (Decrease) in OPEB Expense $82,032 ($97,428) ($295,245) $118,571 ($151,934) ($156,751) ($105,131) $0 $0

27 APPENDIX E: GLOSSARY OF RETIREE HEALTH VALUATION TERMS Note: The following definitions are intended to help a non-actuary understand concepts related to retiree health valuations. Therefore, the definitions may not be actuarially accurate.

Actuarial Cost Method: A mathematical model for allocating OPEB costs by year of service. The only actuarial cost method allowed under GASB 74/75 is the entry age actuarial cost method.

Actuarial Present Value of
Projected Benefit Payments: The projected amount of all OPEB benefits to be paid to current and future retirees discounted back to the valuation or measurement date.

Deferred Inflows/Outflows
of Resources: A portion of certain items that can be deferred to future periods or that weren’t reflected in the valuation. The former includes investment gains/losses, actuarial gains/losses, and gains/losses due to changes in actuarial assumptions or methods.

The latter includes contributions made to a trust subsequent to the measurement date but before the statement date.

Discount Rate: Assumed investment return net of all investment expenses. Generally, a higher assumed interest rate leads to lower service costs and total OPEB liability.

Fiduciary Net Position: Net assets (liability) of a qualifying OPEB “plan” (i.e. qualifying irrevocable trust or equivalent arrangement).

Implicit Rate Subsidy: The estimated amount by which retiree rates are understated in situations where, for rating purposes, retirees are combined with active employees and the employer is expected, in the long run, to pay the underlying cost of retiree benefits.

Measurement Date: The date at which assets and liabilities are determined in order to estimate TOL and NOL.

Mortality Rate: Assumed proportion of people who die each year. Mortality rates always vary by age and often by sex. A mortality table should always be selected that is based on a similar “population” to the one being studied.

Net OPEB Liability (NOL): The Total OPEB Liability minus the Fiduciary Net Position.

OPEB Benefits: Other Post Employment Benefits. Generally, medical, dental, prescription drug, life, long-term care or other postemployment benefits that are not pension benefits.

OPEB Expense: This is the amount employers must recognize as an expense each year. The annual OPEB expense is equal to the Service Cost plus interest on the Total OPEB Liability (TOL) plus change in TOL due to plan changes minus projected investment income; all adjusted to reflect deferred inflows and outflows of resources.

Participation Rate: The proportion of retirees who elect to receive retiree benefits. A lower participation rate results in lower service cost and a TOL. The participation rate often is related to retiree contributions.

28 Pay As You Go Cost: The projected benefit payments to retirees in a given year as estimated by the actuarial valuation. Actual benefit payments are likely to differ from these estimated amounts. For OPEB plans that do not pre-fund through an irrevocable trust, the Pay As You Go Cost serves as an estimated amount to budget for annual OPEB payments.

Retirement Rate: The proportion of active employees who retire each year. Retirement rates are usually based on age and/or length of service. (Retirement rates can be used in conjunction with the service requirement to reflect both age and length of service).

The more likely employees are to retire early, the higher service costs and actuarial accrued liability will be.

Service Cost: The annual dollar value of the “earned” portion of retiree health benefits if retiree health benefits are to be fully accrued at retirement.

Service Requirement: The proportion of retiree benefits payable under the OPEB plan, based on length of service and, sometimes, age. A shorter service requirement increases service costs and TOL.

Total OPEB Liability (TOL): The amount of the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments attributable to participants’ past service based on the actuarial cost method used.

Trend Rate: The rate at which the employer’s share of the cost of retiree benefits is expected to increase over time. The trend rate usually varies by type of benefit (e.g. medical, dental, vision, etc.) and may vary over time. A higher trend rate results in higher service costs and TOL.

Turnover Rate: The rate at which employees cease employment due to reasons other than death, disability or retirement. Turnover rates usually vary based on length of service and may vary by other factors. Higher turnover rates reduce service costs and TOL.

Valuation Date: The date as of which the OPEB obligation is determined by means of an actuarial valuation. Under GASB 74 and 75, the valuation date does not have to coincide with the statement date, but can’t be more than 30 months prior.

Item #19.D.

Date: March 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Issue: Syserco Energy Solutions- Energy Assessment Review - Verbal Report City Manager's Recommendation:

Receive, file, and provide direction.

Administrative Action:

Submitted by:

Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director
Reviewed by:

Kambiz Borhani, Finance Director / City Treasurer
Approved by:

Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Background and Analysis:

On October 6, 2025, the City Council unanimously approved the city's entry into a Non-Binding Letter of Intent (LOI) with CIOproUSA-GreenRock-Syserco (SES) for an Energy Services Agreement under California Government Code § 4217, and a Notice to Proceed for a NO-COST Investment-Grade Audit.

Over the past few months, SES has worked with city staff to identify specific energy conservation measures, cost savings, and potential funding mechanisms. Following completion of their walkthrough, audit, and analysis of city facilities, SES has identified areas and equipment for energyefficiency measures.

On February 25, 2026, SES presented their findings to City Council. As a result, council requested staff

provide recommendations and present recommendations at the March 25th meeting.

Staff and SES are here tonight to discuss staff's recommendations with City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact at this time. Any future implementation of energy efficiency measures would be brought back to the City Council for separate review and approval.

Attachments:

None

User:

Printed:

Total for 3/12/2026: 2,500.00
Check Date Check Amount
107803 WILLDAN Willdan Financial Services 03/12/2026 2,500.00 Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date
kzhang
3/18/2026 12:46 PM
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name

IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 28, 2026
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE WEDNESDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 8:02 P.M.

The Irwindale SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE IRWINDALE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY met in regular session at the above time and place.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Councilmembers Mark A. Breceda, Larry G. Burrola, Manuel R. Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Albert F. Ambriz, Mayor H. Manuel Ortiz
Also Present: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager; Adrian Guerra, City Attorney; Theresa Olivares, Assistant City Manager; Christopher Hofford, Chief of Police; Kambiz Borhani, Director of Finance / City Treasurer; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering / Building Official; Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director; Mary Hull, Human Resources Manager, and Laura Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk AB 2449 DISCLOSURES
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Councilmember Breceda, seconded by Councilmember Burrola, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was unanimously approved.

ITEM NO. 26A

WARRANTS/DEMANDS/PAYROLL
The warrants/demands/payroll were approved.

ITEM 26B
INVESTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2025 The Investment Quarterly Report for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2025 was received and filed.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

SPONTANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. ________________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk

IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 28, 2026
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE WEDNESDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 8:03 P.M.

The Irwindale HOUSING AUTHORITY met in regular session at the above time and place.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Board Members Mark A. Breceda, Larry G. Burrola, Manuel R. Garcia; Vice Chair Albert F. Ambriz; Chair H. Manuel Ortiz
Also present: Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director; Adrian Guerra, General Counsel; Theresa Olivares, Assistant Executive Director; Christopher Hofford, Chief of Police; Kambiz Borhani, Director of Finance / City Treasurer; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering / Building Official; Mary Hull, Human Resources Manager, and Laura Nieto, and Chief Deputy City Clerk AB 2449 DISCLOSURES
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Board Member Breceda, seconded by Board Member Burrola, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was unanimously approved.

ITEM NO. 31A
INVESTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2025 The Investment Quarterly Report for Fiscal Quarter ending December 31, 2025 was received and filed.

SPONTANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS
There were no speakers.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. _________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Assistant Authority Secretary